Re: [Xen-devel] Ping: [PATCH] XSA-77: widen scope again

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 09.05.16 at 18:19, <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 06/05/16 09:12, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 29.04.16 at 11:35, <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> As discussed on the hackathon, avoid us having to issue security
>>> advisories for issues affecting only heavily disaggregated tool stack
>>> setups, which no-one appears to use (or else they should step up to get
>>> things into shape).
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>> 
>> Ping?
>> 
>>> ---
>>> As we want to retain supported status of stubdom qemu: Does qemu use
>>> any others when use in a stub domain?
>>>
>>> --- a/docs/misc/xsm-flask.txt
>>> +++ b/docs/misc/xsm-flask.txt
>>> @@ -59,68 +59,16 @@ http://www.xenproject.org/security-polic 
>>>  
>>>  __HYPERVISOR_domctl (xen/include/public/domctl.h)
>>>  
>>> - The following subops are covered by this statement. subops not listed
>>> - here are considered safe for disaggregation.
>>> + All subops except for the following are covered by this statement.
> 
> Sorry I'm just getting to this -- I think the wording is a bit unclear here.
> 
> The previous wording made it clear what "covered by this statement"
> means -- i.e., "subops not listed here are considered safe for
> disaggregation".
> 
> Maybe something like this:
> 
> "All subops except the following are covered by this statement.  (That
> is, only the subops below are considered safe for disaggregation.)"

Well, I can certainly do this, but to me it states the same thing twice.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel